You have no intention of 'debating' this or having an intelligent conversation.
You are dangerously hypocritical. You misinterpreted what I said.
Will I understand? No.
Can I still make comments and debate the subject? Yes.
Was the POINT of the debate my understanding? No, it was to do with the soldiers' actions with the deceased bodies. Because I don't understand what they've been through is far from saying I have no right to say anything about it -- or that what I say bares no validity as a result.
Which goes to prove my point about your arrogance.
You have no point about my arrogance, I have merely, and simply, dealt with points of your ill-conceived arguments and you've only consistently refered to a mistake, that I don't even know is even mine, because you consistently fail to provide the necessary information to make that judgement for EITHER SIDE.
So, either give me the ability to prove myself wrong and admit as much, or put your poor attitude and this segment of "debate" in the corner.
Entering into a debate relies on both parties agreeing to take on board the others points of view which you have stated you're not willing to do.
Again, a misinterpretation -- stress and pain the soldiers endure is something I do not understand... it hardly means I won't take it aboard.
I appreciate you dredging up more than I possibly have from your statements.
no intention of trying to understand someone else's point of view
Because
I
Can't?
Would you say I actually CAN understand what they've gone through? Can any civilian out of the line of fire actually do that?
I suspect that even if I sat up all night discussing this with you, you'd still be claiming you knew better.
Knew better about what exactly?
they could defend themself by saying that this is what they thought was "appropriate dignity and respect."
it doesn't say they had to be good to the dead bodys.
i guess they can get out of it this way.
I doubt that, "Appropriate dignity and respect" seems to go against an action like that under any circumstance... the interpretation of it can't really be twisted to make urination on the deceased bodies appear acceptable.
As for the discussion going on for Stockholm Syndrome, and the like -- skimmed through most of it, mostly convinced that torture does go on, even without reason behind the enemies' doors. It's quite easy to derive that from most combat situations really.
Frankly, the Taliban show no humanity towards us, why should we show it to them.
"Don't try to argue with an idiot, if you do he will lower yourself to is level and beat you down with experience."
Don't slink to a low, because the enemy is at the same. Otherwise airforce pilots would have dynamite strapped on them in the case of being shot down, and etc.
Are you insane? That corpse isn't a weapon to be used. That is the remains of a son, father, husband, friend.
It bares strong practical use to booby trap them against more of the enemy. Do I agree with it ? No, but I don't agree with a lot of the blood shed that goes on.
Lets put it this way, if you died would you like to be brought back to your family or blown to pieces to kill your friends.
If it's an argument of one's will then it would be far more intelligent to consider how many people want to go into a combat zone like that in the first place.
These are real people, you are not simply gaining experience on a video game.
Peoples' accusations of others being on video games is ignorant and offensive in itself. I'd rather you not to try belittling others' opinions for not being on the frontline, thanks.
but is what you should expect when the publi (i.e you) always sympathise with a heartless enemy but see fallen soldiers as a statistic and feel no remorse. Why? Because this is a subject in which you have no knowledge.
Nice generalization, you twit.
Do I sympathize with the enemy? No, if anything, it's for the civilians and the SOLDIERS. Do I actually think they would do that with their head on straight (for lack of a better term)? Hell freaking no. But there are several aspects to consider, it is the method in which war is waged, the political ideas involved (diplomatic standings would be unsettled greatly by this act) and furthermore the fact that it is degrading to the soldiers doing it.
Stop making assumptions.
I admit the method and their ideology is strict, but they accomplished something the afghans wanted.(security)
And now that that's been done, they want something more beyond that, which is something to reasonably protect (beyond their lives).
The history is intwined with a lot of things to consider... but ultimately the treatment of deceased corpses never really changes to any honorable side that has fixed standards. They would not lower them according to their enemy, for no reason.
In terms of practical capabilities -- booby traps on bodies, for instance... I don't know. Usually war will create a strong enough argument for one side to start using those tactics, and in this case I would say is one. There is no gentleman's way to fight a war, otherwise it wouldn't be known as one.
Saying that, medieval and industral methods of warfare were very straight-up and honourable.
I can see that you believe soldiers are failures who couldn't achieve at anything else.
Stop the assumptions.
Soldiers are usually the most varied type of character in a country, being as war / battle can change them throughout the years and others join for different reasons.
You base yours on secondary sources, and, no doubt, your "triumphs" on call of duty.
Empiricism is not above anything unless proven scientifically. Otherwise it can be mind-numblingly twisted. Not saying that's the case, but speaking from experience to me is saying "I have nothing that solid to say".
Stop being a prick, and ripping on someone for nothing you know about, you make up that everything you do is utterly impossible to understand without experience, but you think that makes you above him or something. Here's a hint -- you're judged on your actions, and your piss poor attitude towards DSM just shows that you're a fool.
Secondary sources that are viable bare LOTS of weight.
I have to agree with Vulcan you can't really make a better argument unless you've been there.
I argue that experience is being over valued in this circumstance.
why are we there to provide security and stability?
Oh right, because the point we're in there in the first place is true and just. Of that I'm not even sure.
There are many motives for why you would go in and do something, the decisions made to do so are political, no doubt, and with that it's hard to get a straight answer.
All sounds terribly peaceful to me.
Paid reference by the method made to "have peace", which would appear to be oppression, obviously.
I did not come here to be educated and I assure you that nobody on this website will change my opinions.
If they're opinions (not facts) then they should be open to change.
As for you DSM, you are a naive individual who lies about where he has been, obvious as you only wanted to stop argueing and go back to topic when I challenged you about visiting Afghan;
I went to Afghanistan as part of a camera crew for a charity.
You know, I'm on the internet so there's not much saying I didn't actually do that.
But I didn't do that.
If he was spinning a lie it's unbelievably easy to come up with something, but because he actually didn't want to go into detail, which could be for any reason in the world, you assume he's lying? Shallow.
because that is all I need to know, to make a good guess of what kind of person you are.
You seem to be a person of sound judgement.
Sorry, too sarcastic?
Your assumptions and your insults only lead to me that you're not of strong intellectual mind.
Can I derive from that that your philosophies are also ill-conceived as a result?
Yes. I can.
The funny thing is it is logically backed up. Sure, it could be wrong, but I doubt that is actually the case.
In fact some of the worst of the current power struggles took place when the Taliban arrived in 1994 to when the US forces arrived in 2001.
Can you provide some links of this please?
As for that, I'll read DSM's being as it seems to give enough relevent information.
- H
